Theology Shmeology

Many times we hear that religion and politics go hand in hand, to many, they actually complement each other. The latter is there to ensure the proper implementation of the former or so is the belief!

Why are you restating yourself? Is i tbecause your editor asked for 1000 words and you only had 750? Or is it because you in fact don't believe what you write?

What many fail to recognize is that, as in any field or profession, if one is not educated properly in the field, then perhaps s/he should not be entrusted to work.

That is a valid point. But tell me good sir, how are you qualified to write? You are not educated properly in the field. Or is it a case of do as I say, not as I do? I think you should heed your own advice and quit this writing thing.

I will give you a clear example; if one is not properly educated in the science of medicine and if one is not adequately qualified to become a surgeon.

What is the point of this fragment, sir? These two are not mutually exclusive. They, if you will, complement each other. If you are not educated in the science of medicine then you are not adequately qualified to practice it. But wait, surely there are those who are not educated in medicine that practice it well? Shamans? Herbal doctors? Yes, those people exist.

If you know that such is the case and that your life depends on the skills of a given doctor to cure an illness that requires surgery, would you opt to be operated by a qualified surgeon or by a surgeon that is well- read on every major operation yet has practiced none?!

That has nothing to do with education. That is a question of experience. Of course you want the doctor with experience. That doesn't mean that the rookie is not qualified to do the procedure. He might be. But your experience tells you to go with the experienced doctor, even though the rookie might be better. Education plays no part in the argument.

Clearly, the idea of having a priest King is ideal for it would combine the two distinct worlds together, like a Khalifa that would rule based on theology. Nevertheless, we have experienced time and again through history that theological regimes or regimes that claim to gain their legitimacy from the Almighty are bound to fail at one point or another.

Those that claim to gain their legitimacy from the Almighty are bound to fail because their claims are heresy.

In our contemporary world, amid our direct neighbor we have clear examples of theology and the negative impact such rules have on the daily lives of their citizens.

I don't think the problem lies in the theology in as much as the people of the neighboring country don't want to be governed by it. Even if it is a good theology, if the people of the country reject it, there are bound to be problems.

What comes worse than theological rule, is a dictatorial theology whereby one is not even allowed to challenge through religion the various edicts passed by the ruling 'mullahs' who have taken the job of being God's vice-regents on earth as if the kingdom of heaven passes first through their approval and then to God!

There's a word for those vice-regents. They're called heretics.

What I find ludicrous is the fact that even though we are all given a test in this life for those that believe, and that the test is not an open book test nor is it a group project whereby people pass if they ally themselves with more versed individuals. We are clearly told that a day will come when we will all be held accountable for our own actions and that on such a day no one will be of use to us, not even our parents!

Yes, but the rulers of such nations, the leaders of men, will be asked what they have done to curb heretical actions and injustices and attacks on the religion. This is why theocracies still exist. However, the problem lies in the people who hold the power in these theocracies, and not the idea of theocracy itself. You seem to miss the point here. It is not the religion that you should be attacking, but the people implementing it. We've gone through this before, good sir.

With such clear warnings, I find it absurd for the least that people are not willing to seek the truth for themselves. I find it bizarre that people are scared to seek within the various revelations, the truth that will set their conscious free rather than merely rely on unreliable people that seek power at any cost. We are all prisoners of conscience due to our inability to challenge theology for fear of damnation, as if the 'mullahs' have such power.

The fear is not one of damnation. The fear is, as it always has been, that of the bullet. People die when they oppose the mullahs. Are you not watching the news? You know you can't report on the news if you're not watching.

It is saddening that those that are unable to convincingly argue their points resort to fear, for they know that their answers will come short of convincing the masses if they don't confuse in their speeches. The ultimate tool to control masses; the promise of an unknown that these so to speak of 'mullahs' have access to. More importantly this is how they derive their ultimate power.

Read: Bullets and guns.

May we all be guided to the path of truth and righteousness and that we may live together in peace regardless of our beliefs. The judge on that matter will make a manifestation on his decision at a later time. In the meantime, righteous actions are what people should strive to accomplish.

Amen.

My good sir, your righteous action should be writing more gems like this conclusion. It almost makes me want to rescind my critique of your article.

On second thought, naaaaaaah.